TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depended upon the addition made to the income of the assessee. In the present case, the addition has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.5.2016 cited supra, and therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not limb to stand. CIT(A) has rightly cancelled the penalty, which we confirm and the ground of the Revenue challenging impugned penalty is rejected. This observation and findings of our are also equally applicable to the cases of other three assessees. Therefore, appeals of the Revenue in all the cases are dismissed. - ITA No.765/Ahd/2017 With CO No.73/Ahd/2017, ITA No.766/Ahd/2017 With CO No.74/Ahd/2017, ITA No.767/Ahd/2017 With CO No.75/Ahd/2017, ITA No.768/Ahd/2017 With CO No.76/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge are also verbatim same except change in the amounts of penalty. Therefore, we take the facts as stated in the case of M/s.Maitrik Buildcon P.Ltd., in ITA No.765/Ahd/2017 for the sake of convenience. 4. ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty on the ground that additions made by the AO on which this penalty has been levied stands deleted by the ITAT, and therefore, penalty is not imposable. The ld.DR was unable to dispute this contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee. 5. It emerges out from the record that an addition of ₹ 2,14,50,039/- was made to the total income of the assessee on ground that the assessee has received cash on sale o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shekhar Patel had categorically denied having received cash amount on the sale of land in question. Revenue has ignored the same which is not justified. Assessees have not been provided cross examination of person who is alleged to have made payment of cash of ₹ 15.07 crores to the assessees which is again not justified. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by the Revenue in all these groups alleged to be received from CCPL does not survive and same is directed to be deleted. This take care of main off on money in land deal in cases of all these assessee of this group. 6. We find that sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) provides mechanism for quantification of penalty. It contemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
